PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has set July 1 next year to hear former Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin’s appeal against a decision by the High Court ordering her to pay RM10 million to the party for breaching the bond binding her to the party.
Lawyer Navpreet Singh, representing PKR, when contacted, told Bernama the date was fixed during the case management before Court of Appeal deputy registrar Mariam Hasanah Othman last Monday.
He said parties in the appeal were also ordered to submit their respective written submissions before the date.
On June 23, this year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ordered Zuraida to pay RM10 million to PKR after allowing the party’s lawsuit.
Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir allowed the PKR’s suit after finding that the bond was valid and a binding contract. He also ordered the former Ampang Member of Parliament to pay RM50,000 in legal costs.
The suit was filed by PKR secretary-general Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail on September 28, 2020, on behalf of the party to claim RM10 million from Zuraida for allegedly breaching the bond binding her to the party.
In the statement of claim, PKR claimed that Zuraida had signed a bond on April 25, 2018, binding her to pay RM10 million to the party as stated in the bond’s terms and conditions.
PKR claimed that Zuraida had agreed to pay the party a sum of RM10 million at the latest seven days, in the event of several incidents, including, after winning the election on a PKR ticket, she resigned from the party or joined other political parties or becomes an independent elected representative.
Zuraida, in her defence, claimed that she was forced to sign the bond with the party to become its candidate in the 14th General Election (GE14) in 2018.
In his decision, Justice Akhtar said Zuraida’s contention that she signed the bond under duress or coercion was baseless.
“The court finds the bond was a valid agreement that binds the defendant (Zuraida) to pay the RM10 million as promised on her membership being terminated, he said, adding that the reputation of a membership of the defendant was caused by the defendant’s own misconduct.
